Are we trying to find out if organic foods are more nutritious, or if organic foods offer health benefits beyond nutrition? (or to reverse that, do inorganic foods offer adverse effects beyond nutrition) Remember I said , ” Modified food may or may not have adverse effects beyond different nutrient contents (which so far is debatable),” The authors conclude in your 2nd link that they agree the evidence on the benefits of organic foods is scant at the moment.
“Organic” and “non-modified” are very different things.
“Organic” means that the food producer has received a particular kind of certification for his production. By the way, in this context the opposite of “organic” is “conventional”, not “inorganic”.
“Non-modified” has a less well-defined meaning, but generally it means food as it comes from the farm, not from a factory.
There is lots of “organic modified” and “conventional non-modified” food.
Misnomer noted. So, is there evidence that conventional foods (or foods that are not organic) have adverse effects beyond possible nutritional differences, when compared to organic foods, and genetically modified vs. not modified? (and by not modified I mean not genetically modified, if the context preceding the words didn’t make those words crystal clear) I am of course open to the possibility, but I would like to see harder evidence before paying a premium.
is there evidence that conventional foods (or foods that are not organic) have adverse effects beyond possible nutritional differences, when compared to organic foods, and genetically modified vs. not modified?
Are we trying to find out if organic foods are more nutritious, or if organic foods offer health benefits beyond nutrition? (or to reverse that, do inorganic foods offer adverse effects beyond nutrition) Remember I said , ” Modified food may or may not have adverse effects beyond different nutrient contents (which so far is debatable),” The authors conclude in your 2nd link that they agree the evidence on the benefits of organic foods is scant at the moment.
“Organic” and “non-modified” are very different things.
“Organic” means that the food producer has received a particular kind of certification for his production. By the way, in this context the opposite of “organic” is “conventional”, not “inorganic”.
“Non-modified” has a less well-defined meaning, but generally it means food as it comes from the farm, not from a factory.
There is lots of “organic modified” and “conventional non-modified” food.
Misnomer noted. So, is there evidence that conventional foods (or foods that are not organic) have adverse effects beyond possible nutritional differences, when compared to organic foods, and genetically modified vs. not modified? (and by not modified I mean not genetically modified, if the context preceding the words didn’t make those words crystal clear) I am of course open to the possibility, but I would like to see harder evidence before paying a premium.
Not to my knowledge.